4 ms·

> Foiling terrorist plots is a critical component of policing. Uh, what? Is this sarcasm?

by mulmen 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Uh, what? Is this sarcasm? No. I'm not saying it should be the job of local police. But when a terrorist plot goes through, one of the first questions asked is why it wasn't stopped. (DHS and FBI are police inasmuch as they are not military or strictly IC, i.e. they can make arrests.) Similarly, police seize guns before they've been used to commit a crime and arrest dealers before they've sold drugs. In this case, the crime they're investigating would presumably be conspiring to do terrorism.
- mulmen 2y ago
  > In this case, the crime they're investigating would presumably be conspiring to do terrorism. On what basis do you make this assumption? The indictment is for racketeering and makes no mention of terrorism.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > On what basis do you make this assumption? The indictment is for racketeering and makes no mention of terrorism I think the top comment about this being Atlanta's homeland security department or whatever threw me off. Conspiring to do something. The something isn't important for my argument so long as it's a crime. That conspiring is the crime in progress or already done. For all intents and purposes, it's preëmptive to the actual thing we want to prevent. But that's why we criminalise, in addition to the crimes per se, possessions, intents, et cetera. Police are not a purely reactive security element.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > I think the top comment about this being Atlanta's homeland security department or whatever threw me off. Not even a local branch of DHS. Atlanta Police Department's Homeland Security Unit. I think that's the danger here. Regardless of the justifications or even the current legality I don't think it is reasonable to expect local police departments to carry out dragnet surveillance in an attempt to find crime because that's exactly what they will do. Maybe I'm naive and there really are so many impending terrorist attacks that we need every medium sized city PD to have a homeland security unit. I don't think that's the case. I think it is more likely the militarization of the police has expanded their scope so far they can no longer effectively police. When you have regular "intel reports" coming out of your "homeland security unit" the content isn't really important anymore. Everyone is a potential threat. If you dig deep enough you'll eventually be right. > Conspiring to do something. The something isn't important for my argument so long as it's a crime. When you view the world through the lens of "homeland security" any gathering looks like a criminal conspiracy.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Oh, it was this comment [1] and these charges [2]. It looks like the AG is standing by the charges [3]. The article references what look like credible calls for violence [4], which I suppose could transcend incitement of violence to domestic terrorism if they helped organise it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186953 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City#Domestic_terrorism_charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City#Domestic_terrori... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230228223918/https://1010wcsi.com/fox-news/georgia-ag-defends-domestic-terrorism-charges-for-atlanta-cop-city-protesters/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230228223918/https://1010wcsi.... [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230301050800/https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-georgia-protesters-call-violence-police-shooting-leaves-dead-officer-injured https://web.archive.org/web/20230301050800/https://www.foxne...
        mulmen 2y ago
        Sure, and the AG might even be right! But that doesn't justify the surveillance as described. Is there any explanation of how this surveillance helped catch the handful of violent individuals, or if it is even useful to the case, or any justification of the collateral damage? As noted in the article, the mere existence of these lists has a chilling effect. We live in a world where putting the right ball cap in the back window of your car can get you out of a lot of trouble. Knowing the local PD is scanning social media for objectionable (to them) content and doing god knows what with it has a chilling effect on speech.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        > If you dig deep enough you'll eventually be right. And you'll leave a trail of broken lives behind you.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > DHS and FBI are police inasmuch as they are not military or strictly IC, i.e. they can make arrests They are law enforcement. They are not police, and this distinction must be made to avoid this exact situation wherein state police are de facto granted more privileges and duties than specifically mandated.

> Foiling terrorist plots is a critical component of policing. Uh, what? Is this sarcasm?

by mulmen 2y ago

> Foiling terrorist plots is a critical component of policing. Uh, what? Is this sarcasm?

> Uh, what? Is this sarcasm? No. I'm not saying it should be the job of local police. But when a terrorist plot goes through, one of the first questions asked is why it wasn't stopped. (DHS and FBI are police inasmuch as they are not military or strictly IC, i.e. they can make arrests.) Similarly, police seize guns before they've been used to commit a crime and arrest dealers before they've sold drugs. In this case, the crime they're investigating would presumably be conspiring to do terrorism.

mulmen 2y ago
> In this case, the crime they're investigating would presumably be conspiring to do terrorism. On what basis do you make this assumption? The indictment is for racketeering and makes no mention of terrorism.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > On what basis do you make this assumption? The indictment is for racketeering and makes no mention of terrorism I think the top comment about this being Atlanta's homeland security department or whatever threw me off. Conspiring to do something. The something isn't important for my argument so long as it's a crime. That conspiring is the crime in progress or already done. For all intents and purposes, it's preëmptive to the actual thing we want to prevent. But that's why we criminalise, in addition to the crimes per se, possessions, intents, et cetera. Police are not a purely reactive security element.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > I think the top comment about this being Atlanta's homeland security department or whatever threw me off. Not even a local branch of DHS. Atlanta Police Department's Homeland Security Unit. I think that's the danger here. Regardless of the justifications or even the current legality I don't think it is reasonable to expect local police departments to carry out dragnet surveillance in an attempt to find crime because that's exactly what they will do. Maybe I'm naive and there really are so many impending terrorist attacks that we need every medium sized city PD to have a homeland security unit. I don't think that's the case. I think it is more likely the militarization of the police has expanded their scope so far they can no longer effectively police. When you have regular "intel reports" coming out of your "homeland security unit" the content isn't really important anymore. Everyone is a potential threat. If you dig deep enough you'll eventually be right. > Conspiring to do something. The something isn't important for my argument so long as it's a crime. When you view the world through the lens of "homeland security" any gathering looks like a criminal conspiracy.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Oh, it was this comment [1] and these charges [2]. It looks like the AG is standing by the charges [3]. The article references what look like credible calls for violence [4], which I suppose could transcend incitement of violence to domestic terrorism if they helped organise it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41186953 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City#Domestic_terrorism_charges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Cop_City#Domestic_terrori... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230228223918/https://1010wcsi.com/fox-news/georgia-ag-defends-domestic-terrorism-charges-for-atlanta-cop-city-protesters/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230228223918/https://1010wcsi.... [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230301050800/https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-georgia-protesters-call-violence-police-shooting-leaves-dead-officer-injured https://web.archive.org/web/20230301050800/https://www.foxne...
      - mulmen 2y ago
        Sure, and the AG might even be right! But that doesn't justify the surveillance as described. Is there any explanation of how this surveillance helped catch the handful of violent individuals, or if it is even useful to the case, or any justification of the collateral damage? As noted in the article, the mere existence of these lists has a chilling effect. We live in a world where putting the right ball cap in the back window of your car can get you out of a lot of trouble. Knowing the local PD is scanning social media for objectionable (to them) content and doing god knows what with it has a chilling effect on speech.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      > If you dig deep enough you'll eventually be right. And you'll leave a trail of broken lives behind you.
soulofmischief 2y ago
> DHS and FBI are police inasmuch as they are not military or strictly IC, i.e. they can make arrests They are law enforcement. They are not police, and this distinction must be made to avoid this exact situation wherein state police are de facto granted more privileges and duties than specifically mandated.